Originally Posted by
gsoltso
I think that if we find something that the SOP says we are to report, then we report it. There are several cases that indicate limits to the scope of the searches, as long as we stick to the search as defined by SOP, and report what we are supposed to, then we are doing what we as TSOs are required to. If the public/judiciary reach a point where they think that this is a violation of legal statutes or constitutionally incorrect, it will change. I am merely giving you my opinions, and what I do as a frontline employee. I do not make policy, I merely enforce it. You and I will be opposed on many things, I am certain that there are many things we will agree on. On this issue we are opposed (this is actually a good thing, without dissenting opinions, none of us would ever make progress), and I don't think either of us is going to change the others opinion.
...and you dodged every question again. These are mostly simple yes/no questions about your stated and implied opinions, and about the job you do as a public servant. Why won't you answer?
- Do you agree that when you look in a bag and ignore everything except for certain things, that amounts to a search for those things?
- Do you treat things that appear to be illegal drugs the same as things that look like weapons when searching people and their belongings, alerting a supervisor in each case?
- What difference does it make if you're "looking for possible threats" or looking for potatoes, when you're going to take the same action in either case if you find weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, or a number of other things?
- How do these two differ? 1) "actively searching" for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries while passively searching for drugs and other possible indicators of wrongdoing, and while ignoring most other possible indicators of wrongdoing, and 2) actively searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, and other possible indicators of wrongdoing, while ignoring most other possible indicators of wrongdoing.
- You wrote, "IF there is nothing in the bag that looks like a threat or possible threat, then the bag rolls on," then in the same post, wrote, "When I am searching and see something that looks like illegal drugs, I refer to a supervisor, period." How do you reconcile these contradictory statements about your duties?
- What would you do if were hand-searching someone's bag and you saw three cameras along with photographs of that person smashing a store window, crawling through the hole, and leaving with a bag of cameras?
- Do you think that possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults is a bigger deal -- more cause for investigation and punishment -- than stealing things from other people is?
- Do you acknowledge that TSA proudly announces the fact that it finds evidence of identity theft, credit card fraud, passport fraud, immigrations violations, and possession of controlled substances, when "searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries"?
- Do you feel it's appropriate for you to use your search for WEI as a chance to find drugs, credit card fraud, immigrations violations, and other indications of wrongdoing that have ABSOLUTELY no affect on airline security?
- Do you suppose we could find even more evidence of wrongdoing than we do now if we allowed our government agents to stop everyone who passes other places -- highway entrance ramps, for instance -- and search them for evidence of wrongdoing?
- Do you acknowledge that our courts have ruled that fishing expeditions such as they hypothetical TSA highway entrance ramp "screening checkpoint" described above are unconstitutional, and that in this nation, we aren't supposed to stop all the good people just to look for the few bad people?
Ron, you fell silent. Care to continue the conversation you started? You've made some bold claims, then when challenged to explain yourself, failed to say another word.